On a recent debate that can be viewed here (part 4). Christopher Hitchens asserts that Jesus is (1) an amoral prophet because of his insistence to "drop and leave life and family for him, because only he can save you from the end of the world, and (2) it is "disgusting" for anyone to claim that a person or a god would take all responsibility for wrongs requiring no moral consequence of actions.

Jesus taught that we would have to answer for our actions. This is not lack of responsibility.

Also, Jesus commended His mother to the care of St. John. And does this sound like someone who wants us to abandon people?

Matthew 2534 Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36 I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’

Therefore, he did not lack care for families.

Hitchens has an axe to grind, so inviting him to a debate is not something I'd do in the first place. It's not a debate, it's cant.

No, no, I mean after death in Purgatory, one must be purified for sins since forgiven. This purification can be lessened by actions on Earth and guidance of the RCC.

I'm sorry, I'm still missing the comparison. Are you asking what is the difference between the RCC teaching on Purgatory and the teachings in other churches? Christopher Hitchens, by comparison, doesn't believe in God. If a person prays for other people, I would think that is moral, since they hope for something good (forgiveness) for others.

I never understood why people like him have such a low opinion of God.

He doesn't believe in God.

Right but alot of the other atheists (Harris, Dawkins, etc) view the Christian God as someone who is not good in the least.

They have faith in science and believe that is oppositional to a belief in a diety.

The problem with a belief in Science is that it is always changing, what kind of foundation is that you reckon? What I was saying is that whenever you have atheists talk about the Christian God it is always in a negative light.

No, no, I mean after death in Purgatory, one must be purified for sins since forgiven. This purification can be lessened by actions on Earth and guidance of the RCC.

I'm sorry, I'm still missing the comparison. Are you asking what is the difference between the RCC teaching on Purgatory and the teachings in other churches? Christopher Hitchens, by comparison, doesn't believe in God. If a person prays for other people, I would think that is moral, since they hope for something good (forgiveness) for others.

I'm saying, if he is right that lack of responsibility for actions is amoral, and the teaching on the Latin Purgatory is that sins are forgiven, but still must be 'paid for', is that understanding more moral to Orthodoxy, where sins are forgiven without expectation of future cleansing.

On a recent debate that can be viewed here (part 4). Christopher Hitchens asserts that Jesus is (1) an amoral prophet because of his insistence to "drop and leave life and family for him, because only he can save you from the end of the world, and

When a nation goes to war, it tells its menfolk to drop and leave life and family for it, because only the army can save the nation. Jobs make demands, spouses makes demands, children make demands. Who has priority?

Jesus is up front and honest about that. He is entitled to that priority. If you aren't willing to give it, that's your choice but in for a penny, in for a pound.

Quote

(2) it is "disgusting" for anyone to claim that a person or a god would take all responsibility for wrongs requiring no moral consequence of actions.

The debater rarely tried to debate, so I'm asking you to debate this.

He died for us, not instead of us. Christopher should go to authentict Christian teaching before he tries to debate it.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I'm saying, if he is right that lack of responsibility for actions is amoral, and the teaching on the Latin Purgatory is that sins are forgiven, but still must be 'paid for', is that understanding more moral to Orthodoxy, where sins are forgiven without expectation of future cleansing.

Holy run-on sentence, Batman!

Latin?

Quote from: Azurestone

Holy run-on sentence, Batman!

I'm sorry, this is part of why I still don't understand. The other, is that I think you are comparing apples to oranges. Hitchens is an atheist. He doesn't take part in any church.

Seems like he thinks Jesus was just a normal guy who rejected the old Yahweh in the Hebrew OT.

It says a lot about Dawkins that he refers to God ('the OT Yahweh') as having 'vengeful nastiness.' What about the rainbow in the clouds, to remind the people that He would never again destroy the world by flood? What about the Psalms, in which no matter what trouble and darkness beset people in life, they still praise God and trust in Him? The Old Testament isn't all war and floods.

I'm saying, if he is right that lack of responsibility for actions is amoral, and the teaching on the Latin Purgatory is that sins are forgiven, but still must be 'paid for', is that understanding more moral to Orthodoxy, where sins are forgiven without expectation of future cleansing.

Holy run-on sentence, Batman!

Latin?

Quote from: Azurestone

Holy run-on sentence, Batman!

I'm sorry, this is part of why I still don't understand. The other, is that I think you are comparing apples to oranges. Hitchens is an atheist. He doesn't take part in any church.

I'm not talking about Hitchens' faith.

Hitchens: It is amoral to not require a person to atone for their own wrongs (let them off free).

If TRUE:

Is the understanding of the Latin Purgatory, that is the requirement of purification of sins 'forgiven', but 'not paid for', more moral.

Than:

Orthodox purification for only sinful attachment, not for forgiven sins. Where sins that are forgiven are forgotten.

On a recent debate that can be viewed here (part 4). Christopher Hitchens asserts that Jesus is (1) an amoral prophet because of his insistence to "drop and leave life and family for him, because only he can save you from the end of the world, and (2) it is "disgusting" for anyone to claim that a person or a god would take all responsibility for wrongs requiring no moral consequence of actions.

The debater rarely tried to debate, so I'm asking you to debate this.

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Perhaps these vitriolic, hate-mongers who are confused at best, and nefarious at worst, should meet Jesus Christ directly and turn to Him, rather than analyzing, postulating, theorizing, discussing, debating, interpreting, guessing, doubting, arguing etc etc etc

Pride is a sin which plagues Christians as much as anyone, but what separates us in God's Grace is that He teaches us to pray, "Lord Jesus, Son of God, Have Mercy on Me a Sinner."

If Chris Hitchens said that from time to time he and Dawkins might just get their heads out of their own keisters from time to time.. In Rastafari we say, "If a fish woulda keep him big yap shut, him never woulda got caught, seen?"

stay blessed,habte selassie

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

Sun Tzu, in his in his epic thesis; "The art of war" spent a large amount of his book discussing the importance of the terrain upon which the battle would take place.

This is the problem with arguing the existence of God with atheists. The terrain.

Atheists demand the battle take place on the terrain of pure logic. Pure logic is fine for a trigonometry exam, but pure logic in most areas implies a separation of subject and object. The separation here is between head and heart.

Once the heart is taken out of the equation I can no more share about God than I could tell someone the weight of quality or the distance of love. You could just as well put infinity +1 on each equation that trigonometry exam.

Mind you, this is just my opinion from my own experiences, but in my travels I have found very few atheists that truly do not believe in the existence of God. They say they don't believe in God, but once you get beyond the surface what they really have is a very bad relationship with God. They argue, not to convince others but to try to convince themselves. Confronting them directly does little but get them to dig in their heels and not much is ever accomplished.

I doubt if this is what the OP of this thread was looking for so sorry for that, but I had to make a first post on this board somewhere.

On a recent debate that can be viewed here (part 4). Christopher Hitchens asserts that Jesus is (1) an amoral prophet because of his insistence to "drop and leave life and family for him, because only he can save you from the end of the world, and (2) it is "disgusting" for anyone to claim that a person or a god would take all responsibility for wrongs requiring no moral consequence of actions.

The debater rarely tried to debate, so I'm asking you to debate this.

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Perhaps these vitriolic, hate-mongers who are confused at best, and nefarious at worst, should meet Jesus Christ directly and turn to Him, rather than analyzing, postulating, theorizing, discussing, debating, interpreting, guessing, doubting, arguing etc etc etc

Well, have your Jesus fellow come on down and we can have a little chit-chat. Oh, that's right he's dead and he ain't coming back. See, that's the problem with religion, whenever you ask for real evidence...if Jesus exists as a deity, he should have no problem coming down and having a little chat...there's some convoluted excuse why that can't happen. The logical answer is that Jesus won't come talk to us because he's been dead for 2000 years, but the Christian explanation is that he just showed up for a few years in some backwater of the Roman Empire before modern media or even the printing press, then left and is expecting people 2000 years later to believe he's a god without leaving any credible evidence or bothering to come on by for the occasional visit. If this Jesus-god exists, he'd make Loki look like a sane and rational entity in comparison.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

Except, Biblically, God doesn't work in grand signs and wonders during this period of time.

I wouldn't know if God works subtly in lives of different people. That's beyond my ability to ascertain. They can certainly believe that, if they like, but I don't take it for granted that God will bless me on every occasion.

Really, the true benefits of Christianity come from the lifestyle. Christianity teaches self-restraint, patience, frugality, charity, kindness, ect. It's no surprise that when people act, excuse my terminology, religiously on those ideas, that they have a better chance at doing well in life. The recipe for a blessed life is in the lifestyle, not in random gifts from God. In any case, we've already received the ultimate gift from God: salvation.

I thoroughly dislike preachers who work the "Gifts from God" angle. As though your good works must necessarily be rewarded by God. It distracts people and causes them to focus too heavily on works.

Except, Biblically, God doesn't work in grand signs and wonders during this period of time.

Of course not, that would be too rational and straightforward...instead we get crazy-god.

Quote

Really, the true benefits of Christianity come from the lifestyle. Christianity teaches self-restraint, patience, frugality, charity, kindness, ect. It's no surprise that when people act, excuse my terminology, religiously on those ideas, that they have a better chance at doing well in life. The recipe for a blessed life is in the lifestyle, not in random gifts from God. In any case, we've already received the ultimate gift from God: salvation.

I thoroughly dislike preachers who work the "Gifts from God" angle. As though your good works must necessarily be rewarded by God. It distracts people and causes them to focus too heavily on works.

So the benefit of Christianity is as a philosophy? In that case, why dress it up in myth...why not just say 'I believe self-restraint, patience, frugality, charity, and kindness are good and beneficial characteristics'? No 6000 year old earth, talking animals, virgin births, etc. required.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

So the benefit of Christianity is as a philosophy? In that case, why dress it up in myth...why not just say 'I believe self-restraint, patience, frugality, charity, and kindness are good and beneficial characteristics'? No 6000 year old earth, talking animals, virgin births, etc. required.

It would be a serious mystery to the unbeliever as to where their knowledge of right and wrong comes from. How would they even know what is right or wrong to begin with?

And much of what we believe, religious or not, comes from old, dusty books. Most of the better arguments for atheism were written more than a hundred years ago (Dawkins is a shrill weasel compared to writers like Hume, Voltaire).

The age of a book has nothing to do with whether or not its contents are true. Information, unlike most everything else, never gets old, never breaks down, and it never dies. Information can only be shown to be correct or incorrect. The Bible cannot be invalidated simply because it's "archaic".

It would be a serious mystery to the unbeliever as to where their knowledge of right and wrong comes from. How would they even know what is right or wrong to begin with?

Our evolution as a species, both biological and social, have predisposed us to many views and inclinations (necessary for primitive group survival). Therefore, many non-believers refuse to view morality as absolute nor "objective". I don't see where the mystery is.

Quote

The Bible cannot be invalidated simply because it's "archaic".

The Bible has important historical and anthropological significance. On par with the Theogony and the Younger Edda.

Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS

But how do you know that what you were taught is right? How do you know that your standards are tenable? What is it about your feelings that reassure you that you're acting by the right code of conduct?

How is it that near everyone has the same knowledge about ethics? It's almost like there is some Natural Moral Law.

I think most Christians would argue, or at least I would, that murder is wrong because human life is sacred. Why is human life sacred?

It should be a great mystery to you as to how, exactly, so many authors, over centuries, managed to write such a cohesive document. It's so cohesive, in fact, that it has withstood all these years of vicious scrutiny. Second, we're pretty certain about our Greek and Hebrew translations. It's not that difficult to translate, you just have to be careful to comprehend the various contexts within their language.

It would be a serious mystery to the unbeliever as to where their knowledge of right and wrong comes from. How would they even know what is right or wrong to begin with?

Our evolution as a species, both biological and social, have predisposed us to many views and inclinations (necessary for primitive group survival). Therefore, many non-believers refuse to view morality as absolute nor "objective". I don't see where the mystery is.

Where those non-believers get off denying the Master Race to clear its Lebensraum of inferiors. After all, it's evolution.

The Bible has important historical and anthropological significance. On par with the Theogony and the Younger Edda.

The gods of the Theogony and the Younger Edda are dead, never to rise again. IIRC the Younger Edda says as much on Ragnarök.

« Last Edit: November 28, 2010, 10:29:55 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

On a recent debate that can be viewed here (part 4). Christopher Hitchens asserts that Jesus is (1) an amoral prophet because of his insistence to "drop and leave life and family for him, because only he can save you from the end of the world, and (2) it is "disgusting" for anyone to claim that a person or a god would take all responsibility for wrongs requiring no moral consequence of actions.

The debater rarely tried to debate, so I'm asking you to debate this.

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Perhaps these vitriolic, hate-mongers who are confused at best, and nefarious at worst, should meet Jesus Christ directly and turn to Him, rather than analyzing, postulating, theorizing, discussing, debating, interpreting, guessing, doubting, arguing etc etc etc

Well, have your Jesus fellow come on down and we can have a little chit-chat. Oh, that's right he's dead and he ain't coming back.

Well you will have a lot to discuss when you are dead. And when He comes back and drags you up again, He will have the final word.

Quote

See, that's the problem with religion, whenever you ask for real evidence...if Jesus exists as a deity, he should have no problem coming down and having a little chat...

LOL. The Master of the Universe is supposed to be at the beck and call of a little snot. LOL.

Can you summon Pres. Barack Hussein Obama to explain himself? (you have on occasion voiced opposition to his policies, some at least).

Quote

there's some convoluted excuse why that can't happen. The logical answer is that Jesus won't come talk to us because he's been dead for 2000 years, but the Christian explanation is that he just showed up for a few years in some backwater of the Roman Empire before modern media or even the printing press, then left and is expecting people 2000 years later to believe he's a god without leaving any credible evidence or bothering to come on by for the occasional visit.

The Apostles and the other martyrs (Greek: "witness") went through a lot of unnecessary pain insisting on their testimony otherwise.

The Jewish Talmud claims that the Temple doors opened of their own accord every night 40 years prior to its destruction, i.e. around the time of the Crucifixion. We of course know why (Mat. 27:51). Rather odd for Jews to transmitt evidence for Matthew 27:51 (which they probably do not know), and they have their own explanations. No doubt you have yours, not liking the true answer.

Quote

If this Jesus-god exists, he'd make Loki look like a sane and rational entity in comparison.

Judging the Judge of the Living and the Dead. I look forward to your defense in the superior court.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

But how do you know that what you were taught is right? How do you know that your standards are tenable? What is it about your feelings that reassure you that you're acting by the right code of conduct?

How is it that near everyone has the same knowledge about ethics? It's almost like there is some Natural Moral Law.

I think most Christians would argue, or at least I would, that murder is wrong because human life is sacred. Why is human life sacred?

It should be a great mystery to you as to how, exactly, so many authors, over centuries, managed to write such a cohesive document. It's so cohesive, in fact, that it has withstood all these years of vicious scrutiny. Second, we're pretty certain about our Greek and Hebrew translations. It's not that difficult to translate, you just have to be careful to comprehend the various contexts within their language.

The history of human morality has not been as consistent as you seem to want to think, even things such as rape and murder have not been consistently condemned throughout history. However, I will grant that under 'ideal conditions' (our bellies are full, we're in no immediate danger, and we have an optimistic outlook on our future or at least the future of our tribe) we have a tendency towards a certain 'moral code'; but it's not one that should be surprising, it's a code of civil order that allows the tribe to most effectively interact and cooperate advancing its own survival. In our evolutionary past, a tribe of humans that was constantly in-fighting and bickering would not have been able to cooperate and pool labor and resources in the manner needed to survive difficult situations.

Different people come up with similar ideas of how societies should function because they have been genetically programmed into us through evolution. Those with substantially different concepts tended to die out and not pass their genes on to their offspring.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

Different people come up with similar ideas of how societies should function because they have been genetically programmed into us through evolution. Those with substantially different concepts tended to die out and not pass their genes on to their offspring.

Different people come up with similar ideas of how societies should function because they have been genetically programmed into us through evolution. Those with substantially different concepts tended to die out and not pass their genes on to their offspring.

So... communists really are a savage group of half-breeds!

Communist countries corrected themselves in time, demonstrating common values with the rest of the world. Now as for people like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, and Kim Jong-il...'savage group of half-breeds' hardly does them justice, they obviously suffered from severe cases of genetic psychological abnormalities, they were people who could not function properly in a normal social setting.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

Different people come up with similar ideas of how societies should function because they have been genetically programmed into us through evolution. Those with substantially different concepts tended to die out and not pass their genes on to their offspring.

So... communists really are a savage group of half-breeds!

Communist countries corrected themselves in time, demonstrating common values with the rest of the world. Now as for people like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, and Kim Jong-il...'savage group of half-breeds' hardly does them justice, they obviously suffered from severe cases of genetic psychological abnormalities, they were people who could not function properly in a normal social setting.

But how do you know that what you were taught is right? How do you know that your standards are tenable? What is it about your feelings that reassure you that you're acting by the right code of conduct?

How is it that near everyone has the same knowledge about ethics? It's almost like there is some Natural Moral Law.

I think most Christians would argue, or at least I would, that murder is wrong because human life is sacred. Why is human life sacred?

It should be a great mystery to you as to how, exactly, so many authors, over centuries, managed to write such a cohesive document. It's so cohesive, in fact, that it has withstood all these years of vicious scrutiny. Second, we're pretty certain about our Greek and Hebrew translations. It's not that difficult to translate, you just have to be careful to comprehend the various contexts within their language.

The history of human morality has not been as consistent as you seem to want to think, even things such as rape and murder have not been consistently condemned throughout history. However, I will grant that under 'ideal conditions' (our bellies are full, we're in no immediate danger, and we have an optimistic outlook on our future or at least the future of our tribe) we have a tendency towards a certain 'moral code'; but it's not one that should be surprising, it's a code of civil order that allows the tribe to most effectively interact and cooperate advancing its own survival. In our evolutionary past, a tribe of humans that was constantly in-fighting and bickering would not have been able to cooperate and pool labor and resources in the manner needed to survive difficult situations.

Different people come up with similar ideas of how societies should function because they have been genetically programmed into us through evolution. Those with substantially different concepts tended to die out and not pass their genes on to their offspring.

Explain how your enlightened Europeans, who aren't reproducing and are dying out with their negative birthrate, are going to overcome the Islamist Eurabians.

« Last Edit: November 28, 2010, 03:29:00 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

But how do you know that what you were taught is right? How do you know that your standards are tenable? What is it about your feelings that reassure you that you're acting by the right code of conduct?

How is it that near everyone has the same knowledge about ethics? It's almost like there is some Natural Moral Law.

I think most Christians would argue, or at least I would, that murder is wrong because human life is sacred. Why is human life sacred?

It should be a great mystery to you as to how, exactly, so many authors, over centuries, managed to write such a cohesive document. It's so cohesive, in fact, that it has withstood all these years of vicious scrutiny. Second, we're pretty certain about our Greek and Hebrew translations. It's not that difficult to translate, you just have to be careful to comprehend the various contexts within their language.

The history of human morality has not been as consistent as you seem to want to think, even things such as rape and murder have not been consistently condemned throughout history. However, I will grant that under 'ideal conditions' (our bellies are full, we're in no immediate danger, and we have an optimistic outlook on our future or at least the future of our tribe) we have a tendency towards a certain 'moral code'; but it's not one that should be surprising, it's a code of civil order that allows the tribe to most effectively interact and cooperate advancing its own survival. In our evolutionary past, a tribe of humans that was constantly in-fighting and bickering would not have been able to cooperate and pool labor and resources in the manner needed to survive difficult situations.

Different people come up with similar ideas of how societies should function because they have been genetically programmed into us through evolution. Those with substantially different concepts tended to die out and not pass their genes on to their offspring.

Explain how your enlightened Europeans, who aren't reproducing and are dying out with their negative birthrate, are going to overcome the Islamist Eurabians.

Science.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

But how do you know that what you were taught is right? How do you know that your standards are tenable? What is it about your feelings that reassure you that you're acting by the right code of conduct?

How is it that near everyone has the same knowledge about ethics? It's almost like there is some Natural Moral Law.

I think most Christians would argue, or at least I would, that murder is wrong because human life is sacred. Why is human life sacred?

It should be a great mystery to you as to how, exactly, so many authors, over centuries, managed to write such a cohesive document. It's so cohesive, in fact, that it has withstood all these years of vicious scrutiny. Second, we're pretty certain about our Greek and Hebrew translations. It's not that difficult to translate, you just have to be careful to comprehend the various contexts within their language.

The history of human morality has not been as consistent as you seem to want to think, even things such as rape and murder have not been consistently condemned throughout history. However, I will grant that under 'ideal conditions' (our bellies are full, we're in no immediate danger, and we have an optimistic outlook on our future or at least the future of our tribe) we have a tendency towards a certain 'moral code'; but it's not one that should be surprising, it's a code of civil order that allows the tribe to most effectively interact and cooperate advancing its own survival. In our evolutionary past, a tribe of humans that was constantly in-fighting and bickering would not have been able to cooperate and pool labor and resources in the manner needed to survive difficult situations.

Different people come up with similar ideas of how societies should function because they have been genetically programmed into us through evolution. Those with substantially different concepts tended to die out and not pass their genes on to their offspring.

Explain how your enlightened Europeans, who aren't reproducing and are dying out with their negative birthrate, are going to overcome the Islamist Eurabians.

On a recent debate that can be viewed here (part 4). Christopher Hitchens asserts that Jesus is (1) an amoral prophet because of his insistence to "drop and leave life and family for him, because only he can save you from the end of the world, and (2) it is "disgusting" for anyone to claim that a person or a god would take all responsibility for wrongs requiring no moral consequence of actions.

The debater rarely tried to debate, so I'm asking you to debate this.

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Perhaps these vitriolic, hate-mongers who are confused at best, and nefarious at worst, should meet Jesus Christ directly and turn to Him, rather than analyzing, postulating, theorizing, discussing, debating, interpreting, guessing, doubting, arguing etc etc etc

Well, have your Jesus fellow come on down and we can have a little chit-chat. Oh, that's right he's dead and he ain't coming back. See, that's the problem with religion, whenever you ask for real evidence...if Jesus exists as a deity, he should have no problem coming down and having a little chat...there's some convoluted excuse why that can't happen. The logical answer is that Jesus won't come talk to us because he's been dead for 2000 years, but the Christian explanation is that he just showed up for a few years in some backwater of the Roman Empire before modern media or even the printing press, then left and is expecting people 2000 years later to believe he's a god without leaving any credible evidence or bothering to come on by for the occasional visit. If this Jesus-god exists, he'd make Loki look like a sane and rational entity in comparison.

Listen, I'm only taking your troll bait because it too easy. Jesus is not dead, He is God or He is nothing at all. Unless Jesus is God, then He never even existed, aside from the Holy Tradition and the Scriptures, there is no strictly historical Jesus. So come off it, if you don't believe in our Jesus, don't pretend you believe in the real historical Jesus and we believe in a myth. Jesus is no myth. He is not coming some time in the future like some pie in the sky duppy ghost-God, Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever. He exists right now, in the here and now, and if you call His name and seek Him sincerely in your heart, He will show up quicker than Candyman in the mirror

But if you doubt Him that is fine, He can't deny himself, and in His time, He will unveil Himself to you. I don't need to preach you a sermon or teach you anything, God is strong enough to show you Himself. This Jesus-God not only exists, but He draws every single (even wasted) breath into our lungs, and brings together all of the 26 fundamental forces of the Multiverse into the harmony of the Goldilocks Principle and thus He does not ever need to show Himself to you, as He is always on display. God is like the wind, and faith is like putting smoke or incense on the wind to see the direction in which it is coming and going.

Communist countries corrected themselves in time, demonstrating common values with the rest of the world. Now as for people like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, and Kim Jong-il...'savage group of half-breeds' hardly does them justice, they obviously suffered from severe cases of genetic psychological abnormalities, they were people who could not function properly in a normal social setting.

By the way, please don't ever mix up Uncle Ho with those madman, there is a difference. First and foremost, the Vietminh were not communists, they were socialists, and secondly Ho Chi Mihn was not a mad-man dictator, he was a national hero. You know the North Vietnamese were the only "communist" nation to END a famine and save a million lives rather than cause one and kill a million like Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot and Mengistu and Jong-Il etc etc? Ho Chi Minh was a true patriot and a hero, he was no puppet or genocidal mad-man..

stay blessed,habte selassie

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10